And Sampras grew up on hard courts, yet Federer's record far surpasses Sampras in HC; so what's the point of bringing up where he grew up? Are you claiming that the fast surfaces didn't aid sampras more in holding serve than the slower surfaces of today? what BS -- the world's "greatest" serve comes up a cropper on clay. Here's a gentle reminder: the surfaces were slowed down (wimby, especially) because the tournament was turning into a serve fest. Are you still going to deny that Sampras had an easier time holding serve because the surfaces barring clay aided him?

yeah, Federer has more grass titles because he played warm up tourneys? and sampras didn't? it's Federer's fault that sampras lost early? what a moronic argument.. you seem to get into this mode anytime there's a Federer vs Sampras argument.

you don't get to define what a "normal" federer fan is. may be you like Sampras and Federer equally, so you play the objectivity card, and would clamor for them to be mentioned in the same breath -- but i don't have to. i
look at facts, and it's pretty evident that Federer is a league above sampras.

Click to expand...

Please show me where I denied that fast surfaces aided the Sampras serve. And of course Federer has more titles on hardcourt. I never disputed that Federer was the better player. I just said that holding serve was something Sampras was better at than Federer. obviously the Federer return game was better than the Sampras return game, and obviously he's the more accomplished player. I never disputed any of this, you just assumed I did because your **** brain can't allow me to say that Sampras had a better hold game and wasn't as good on clay as Federer; you took those statements and extrapolated the remainder, none of which I believe. You have no idea what I'm talking about, and this post proves it.

For the record: no one considers you remotely objective, nor do they take you seriously. Everyone here knows you're one of the blindest ****s out there, including the Petetards and *******s. You're completely unobjective and have no connection with the reality of the situation, which is that, despite how much you despise it, the truth is that Sampras is among the best out there, and his hold game is NOT inferior to Federers. You can't win 14 majors, finish 6 years IN A ROW at number 1 without something special. For pete, it was his hold game and attacking game. Come ON. Get a clue!

Pete has NOTHING over Roger. Not even the serve. Pete's 2nd serve is incredibly overrated, its as if nobody could break him ever. Roger has a better 1st and 2nd serve with more disguise.

Click to expand...

As much as I like Federer, Sampras had a 1000 aces year... in relative terms, he did the job better than many other people and I don't see Federer relying as heavily as Sampras did on his serve to win a match. With that said, many other strokes in Pete's arsenal were overrated; from what I have seen of the 80's and 90's tennis, Sampras is more or less a big serve and a wonderful net game... it did get him titles, but his limited abilities at the baseline showed off very easily when he had to face the situation: he lost more than often to guys nobody recalls on clay where the baseline game is put to the harshest of tests -- his was that of a 30th rank player, not of a world number one.

He had a good running forehand his fans will say and, surely he did make a few get into the highlights, but the fact of the matter is that no one spoke of Pete as if he was hammering his opponents with his forehands, doing a lot of damage with it, unlike we do remember of Federer or even Nadal by times... it was a good shot, but not an exceptional shot. As for his backhand have you ever seen Pete hit a big winner off of it? It was rare. Ever seen him leave short balls and have a hard time with it: that happened a lot. Again, we cannot say the same of Federer as, in the last two representations of the end of year championship, he out-hit players with specifically his backhand. Overall, at the baseline, Pete had something that could keep him in the match with players along the top 20-30, but as you got closer to top 10 ground stroke quality, his game was getting obviously insufficient at the baseline. That's why you see the results he had on clay: his baseline game wasn't good enough.

That's also why you see Federer on clay: his baseline game, even at 30 years old, is enough -- well, not only enough to play, but enough to win RG, enough to beat Djokovic in his best form, enough to take Nadal to a 5th set a few times... that's a baseline game. As for serving and receiving, I do grant Pete an edge on the serve as he did produce shots that were substantially superior to what was seen back then. On the return, however, all goes to Roger as we know him to be a very efficient returner, especially against players who hit bombs.

In the end, you look at the record and the question seems void: Federer is better a player than Sampras has ever been... even that dumb argument they made about Federer having an easier is void since he did in fact win A LOT more. In case people wondered, with limited titles, these statistics can be explained either by a weak competition or by the exceptional level Federer presented -- the facts only means there was a substantial relative difference between Federer and others; it states nothing about their actual abilities in an absolute sense. In short, these claims are complete non sequitur as they are not sufficient to force either conclusion over the other one. However, judging by the results Federer gets against much harsher competition when he is in his 31st year (he's 30) as opposed to what Sampras did, I think we can extrapolate he was in fact a better, much hard to defeat opponent than Sampras was. That, on the other hand, isn't a non sequitur.

Good to see some Fed fans with an objective view on Sampras. There's no doubt Fed has exceeded Sampras's accomplishments but he was a great player nonetheless, at least top 5 all time. Some *******s make it look like Sampras would be schooled by Nalbandian!

Click to expand...

Sampras is one of the greatest players ever to grace a tennis court, and the sport is better off having had him be a part of it. He obviously had an amazing serve, wonderful running forehand, unbelievably explosive athleticism, and penetrating, near perfect volleys. His slam dunk will probably always be remembered.

Having said that, I just think Federer's game is a class above Pete's. I think he does everything (except for serving) better. I think the stats on how incredibly dominant he was in his prime on all surfaces CLEARLY show this, and how he continues to be a major contender on all surfaces despite nearing 31 just adds credibility to my claim. Pete based his whole legacy, his whole greatness around the number of slams won, and Roger won more in half the time. Nostalgic Sampras fans need to move forward and accept that he is not the best to play this game, but that doesn't mean he isn't in the top top tier.

Tennis progresses and moves forward. The game evolves, and players get better and better and better. In 20 years from now, Nadal and Djokovic and Federer's groundstrokes will probably look slow (and that is a pretty scary thing to imagine). What will make Federer stand out is his unique God given talent, and how much FUN he made it to watch this sport. In many ways, Roger is a combination of Borg, Agassi, and Sampras in one. He surpasses the dominance of Sampras, changed the game more than Borg, and is more beloved than Agassi.

For pete, it was his hold game and attacking game. Come ON. Get a clue!

Click to expand...

Two things: serve and volley. It seemed to work very well, but it's true that we can question the actual impact of these things separately as holding serve requires many things to go on as a whole and seeing his clay record might help to do so. However, we'd need to know the scores on several matches he had, as well as maybe the length of the average rally... maybe his serve had an impact only very few players could mimic, even on clay, but what if he didn't have that extra juice on the forehand or backhand from mid-court to end the point convincingly on a regular basis when playing on clay? Then, the end point blurs our vision of what was his serve simply because he couldn't finish properly what the serve allowed him to get. We might also find in some occasion a serve competition where he looses the match because he can't return well on clay. The point is that we can't jump to the conclusion as the one you responded to did.

In general, Sampras did hold his serve very well, exceptionally well, in fact and I think he was more of a threat as a server than Federer has ever been, although it's probably not that immense of an edge.

Why bring up the clay issue? Did you not read my post? I said that Pete's ground game didn't back up his serve as well as Federers, so of course Federer would have an equally easy time holding serve today because his groundstrokes cancel out the advantage that Pete's serve gives in the equation, so that Pete's serve+groundstrokes combo is not really better or worse than Federer's, except on clay, since FEDERER GREW UP ON IT.

Click to expand...

Why the heck should Sampras's incompetence on a surface(in this case clay) be overlooked? I mean he was so mediocre/below average on clay that he was losing to nobodies there. And this incredible serve of his(which some say is a bigger weapon than a FH) amounted to zilch on clay. In other words it appeared that good because he played on lightning quick surfaces of the 90s. Plus his weak ground game is no excuse to exempt him from his performance on clay. Edberg a pure S&Ver/net rusher reached the finals of RG and almost won it.

Get a clue, you're completely biased; that's like saying that Roddick's hold and winning percentage on clay should be the true measure of how effective his serve is compared to Federer's. It's shameless bias, and you know it. There's no reason to say clay vs. other surfaces is a better indicator. I could just as easily say that old grass is the best indicator of how well you hold serve, since you NEED to hold serve to have a chance.

But i'm not going to say that, because it's nonsense. So I'm playing by the hold percentage.

Click to expand...

A serve's effectiveness includes not just speed/power but also placement and guile. Federer's serve is more about placement and guile, it's hard to get a read on his serve. That's the one complaint most of his opponents have,they just can't figure out his serve placement. Roddick's serve is more about power, so it depends what your definition of effectiveness is.

Right, Federer has more grass titles because he played warmup tournaments. Sampras has more Wimbledons, where it really counts. and no, the only person who should be embarassed is you, telling someone to be objective when you're the single most biased person in the thread.

Click to expand...

You talk as if Sampras has 3-5 more Wimby's than Federer. It's just one more and Federer lost that 08 final 9-7 in the fifth , so it's not a lot. If Federer had won the 08 Wimby,then he'd currently have 7 consecutive Wimby's surpassing Sampras's 7 Wimby's in a 8 year period.

And BTW Federer has won 65 consecutive grass matches,Pete has not. Federer has won 5 consecutive Wimby's ,Pete has not. If Federer wins one more Wimby, then Sampras would have to pat his 6 Year end championships a little more.

Sampras is one of the greatest players ever to grace a tennis court, and the sport is better off having had him be a part of it. He obviously had an amazing serve, wonderful running forehand, unbelievably explosive athleticism, and penetrating, near perfect volleys. His slam dunk will probably always be remembered.

Having said that, I just think Federer's game is a class above Pete's. I think he does everything (except for serving) better. I think the stats on how incredibly dominant he was in his prime on all surfaces CLEARLY show this, and how he continues to be a major contender on all surfaces despite nearing 31 just adds credibility to my claim. Pete based his whole legacy, his whole greatness around the number of slams won, and Roger won more in half the time. Nostalgic Sampras fans need to move forward and accept that he is not the best to play this game, but that doesn't mean he isn't in the top top tier.

Tennis progresses and moves forward. The game evolves, and players get better and better and better. In 20 years from now, Nadal and Djokovic and Federer's groundstrokes will probably look slow (and that is a pretty scary thing to imagine). What will make Federer stand out is his unique God given talent, and how much FUN he made it to watch this sport. In many ways, Roger is a combination of Borg, Agassi, and Sampras in one. He surpasses the dominance of Sampras, changed the game more than Borg, and is more beloved than Agassi.

Click to expand...

Fed had incredibly dominant years but I think we should not afford that abnormally high value because at the end the total accomplishments count more than how you got there. If Fed doesn't win any more slams he will end at 16, only 2 slams ahead of Pete. To me that difference is big enough to say that Fed is clearly ahead but not big enough to put them in different tiers.For example I put Rafa and Agassi in the same tier as of now, although Rafa's dominance far exceeds anything Agassi had!

16 >> 14 is a lame argument. What really puts Roger ahead of Pete is his Roland Garros title and his period of rarely paralleled dominance.

16 and 14 are virtually the same if you just look at numbers.

Click to expand...

agree to an extent, 16 > 14 is only a part of the argument. What is more striking is the difference in surface versatility and dominance , both areas in which federer edges out sampras by a huge margin .....

agree to an extent, 16 > 14 is only a part of the argument. What is more striking is the difference in surface versatility and dominance , both areas in which federer edges out sampras by a huge margin .....

Click to expand...

A sensible appraisal, in my view. 16 > 14 isn't absolutely insignificant but is rather a part of the argument, and indeed perhaps not the biggest part of the argument at all - it just happens to be in today's climate due to the unintelligible and narrow minded current angle on what constitutes goatdom, as if it were an issue that was only black and white. :-?

One of the funniest things I've heard from the sampras ****s ( because they had very few other things to fall back on ) is that sampras had a higher level of peak play than federer ....

Funny because since federer's first year of dominance ( 2004 ), when people started to compare him more seriously with Sampras and were saying he was even more dominant than sampras ever was over a period of time, the argument at that time was NEVER that sampras' peak level of play was higher, but that federer wasn't close to sampras' achievements ....

Now of course , when fed passed sampras , they ran off to the argument that sampras' peak level of play was higher .... LULZ .....

no, it's not. your stroke by stroke comparisons are a product of your subjectivity; look at the results, and you'll get an objective view. Compared to Sampras, Federer has more majors, masters, more titles on grass, clay and hard, more finals, SFs, much more dominant, and according to you, it is close? are you kidding me? you should be embarrassed by your own posts, not of your fellow *******s'.

sampras should consider himself lucky that he gets mentioned in the same breath as Federer.

Click to expand...

If you do not think they are close, then you are the one who is not being objective. The Tennis Channel countdown, while flawed, had Sampras in the top 5 of the men of all time. How is that not close? If you don't think Sampras' serve was better than Roger's (and Roger's is very good) then you clearly do not know much about tennis.

A sensible appraisal, in my view. 16 > 14 isn't absolutely insignificant but is rather a part of the argument, and indeed perhaps not the biggest part of the argument at all - it just happens to be in today's climate due to the unintelligible and narrow minded current angle on what constitutes goatdom, as if it were an issue that was only black and white. :-?

No.

Click to expand...

I agree, just taking the no of majors at face value is a very simplistic, lazy way of looking at it.

You are one of the many insufferable Federer fans. *Shows you the hand*

Click to expand...

Well, I'm just being honest here. Had it was a 286 wks #1 to 285 wks, then I can understand the numbers are virtually the same. But we are talking about the difference in 2 slam titles, a title that 99.99% of pro tennis player never won in their entire career.

One of the funniest things I've heard from the sampras ****s ( because they had very few other things to fall back on ) is that sampras had a higher level of peak play than federer ....

Funny because since federer's first year of dominance ( 2004 ), when people started to compare him more seriously with Sampras and were saying he was even more dominant than sampras ever was over a period of time, the argument at that time was NEVER that sampras' peak level of play was higher, but that federer wasn't close to sampras' achievements ....

Now of course , when fed passed sampras , they ran off to the argument that sampras' peak level of play was higher .... LULZ .....

Click to expand...

There is no doubt that Fed's peak was higher but I think that 'height of prime' is not necessarily a more important criteria than length of prime. To be clear on what I'm saying, Djokovic (one of my favorite players) had a tremendous 2011. Super high peak. But if he never wins another slam, he should not be considered higher than another 5 slam winner. So winning slams over a period of time vs winning them all in a bunch are IMO equally good - one shows a high period of dominance the other shows ability to produce high levels over long periods of time (Sampras won his 1st slam in 1990, his last in 2002, 12 yrs later).

So for me, Fed is ahead not because of his 'higher peak' but because of his overall accomplishments being higher ( more slams, masters, wtf, win-loss record, slam on clay etc).

Please show me where I denied that fast surfaces aided the Sampras serve. And of course Federer has more titles on hardcourt. I never disputed that Federer was the better player. I just said that holding serve was something Sampras was better at than Federer. obviously the Federer return game was better than the Sampras return game, and obviously he's the more accomplished player. I never disputed any of this, you just assumed I did because your **** brain can't allow me to say that Sampras had a better hold game and wasn't as good on clay as Federer; you took those statements and extrapolated the remainder, none of which I believe. You have no idea what I'm talking about, and this post proves it.

For the record: no one considers you remotely objective, nor do they take you seriously. Everyone here knows you're one of the blindest ****s out there, including the Petetards and *******s. You're completely unobjective and have no connection with the reality of the situation, which is that, despite how much you despise it, the truth is that Sampras is among the best out there, and his hold game is NOT inferior to Federers. You can't win 14 majors, finish 6 years IN A ROW at number 1 without something special. For pete, it was his hold game and attacking game. Come ON. Get a clue!

Click to expand...

and you're now the spokesperson for everyone on this board? I don't care to paint myself as "objective", and I don't believe that anyone is objective either -- most of what people argue comes from strong opinions they have, and it's good to back your opinions with solid facts, which the Petetards can never come up with (14 slams and 6 yrs as #1 is not nearly good enough if you have someone with 16 slams, 5 yrs @ #1, a lot more weeks @ #1 consecutively, more titles on all surfaces, more dominant on all surfaces, consistent day in and day out, and 10x better on a surface where 25% of the matches are played in a year).

I know what I'm talking about, and don't need endorsement about my objectivity from self-righteous, pompous clowns like you and the other idiot who claimed he's embarrassed by his "fellow" federer fans. Like someone gives a sheet.. I don't see why idiots like you have to define the parameters of what's considered "normal". Normal does not mean making excuses for your 2nd favorite player, and selling your favorite player short (that's your claim, that you're fans of both Federer and Sampras -- i like sampras too, but i'm not blind to the fact that he is much more limited than Federer; and his statements of late in the GOAT discussions have rubbed me the wrong way, which is probably why I go the extra mile to highlight the holes in his resume).

who the F claimed that Sampras' hold game is "inferior" to Federer's? I'm simply stating that Federer's is equally impressive. How can you separate the surfaces from hold % when you claim "Sampras has a better hold game" -- you're comparing is Sampras' hold % on ultra-fast surfaces vs. Federer's on uber-slow ones; how is that "objective"? If all matches were played on clay, then Nadal would have the best hold game, possibly ever. I brought up clay because that's the only surface that seems to have not changed much, and comparing Sampras' hold ability on slower surfaces vs Federer's is a good measure.

You can spin it anyway you want, but the truth of the matter is, outside of clay, Federer is as good or better than Sampras. And on clay, Federer is leagues ahead. Which, by any objective measure, does not equate to the both of them being "close". And that is the crux of my argument, not the hold% crap that you're been harping about.

Well, I'm just being honest here. Had it was a 286 wks #1 to 285 wks, then I can understand the numbers are virtually the same. But we are talking about the difference in 2 slam titles, a title that 99.99% of pro tennis player never won in their entire career.

Click to expand...

That's a fantastic point,never even occurred to me.
And to add to that if I may -

There is no doubt that Fed's peak was higher but I think that 'height of prime' is not necessarily a more important criteria than length of prime. To be clear on what I'm saying, Djokovic (one of my favorite players) had a tremendous 2011. Super high peak. But if he never wins another slam, he should not be considered higher than another 5 slam winner. So winning slams over a period of time vs winning them all in a bunch are IMO equally good - one shows a high period of dominance the other shows ability to produce high levels over long periods of time (Sampras won his 1st slam in 1990, his last in 2002, 12 yrs later).

So for me, Fed is ahead not because of his 'higher peak' but because of his overall accomplishments being higher ( more slams, masters, wtf, win-loss record, slam on clay etc).

Click to expand...

I'm not saying height of prime is necessarily a more important factor that length of prime. Both are factors that need to be considered .

I was just pointing out the hilarity in the flip-flop on the arguments ......

and you're now the spokesperson for everyone on this board? I don't care to paint myself as "objective", and I don't believe that anyone is objective either -- most of what people argue comes from strong opinions they have, and it's good to back your opinions with solid facts, which the Petetards can never come up with (14 slams and 6 yrs as #1 is not nearly good enough if you have someone with 16 slams, 5 yrs @ #1, a lot more weeks @ #1 consecutively, more titles on all surfaces, more dominant on all surfaces, consistent day in and day out, and 10x better on a surface where 25% of the matches are played in a year).

I know what I'm talking about, and don't need endorsement about my objectivity from self-righteous, pompous clowns like you and the other idiot who claimed he's embarrassed by his "fellow" federer fans. Like someone gives a sheet.. I don't see why idiots like you have to define the parameters of what's considered "normal". Normal does not mean making excuses for your 2nd favorite player, and selling your favorite player short (that's your claim, that you're fans of both Federer and Sampras -- i like sampras too, but i'm not blind to the fact that he is much more limited than Federer; and his statements of late in the GOAT discussions have rubbed me the wrong way, which is probably why I go the extra mile to highlight the holes in his resume).

who the F claimed that Sampras' hold game is "inferior" to Federer's? I'm simply stating that Federer's is equally impressive. How can you separate the surfaces from hold % when you claim "Sampras has a better hold game" -- you're comparing is Sampras' hold % on ultra-fast surfaces vs. Federer's on uber-slow ones; how is that "objective"? If all matches were played on clay, then Nadal would have the best hold game, possibly ever. I brought up clay because that's the only surface that seems to have not changed much, and comparing Sampras' hold ability on slower surfaces vs Federer's is a good measure.

You can spin it anyway you want, but the truth of the matter is, outside of clay, Federer is as good or better than Sampras. And on clay, Federer is leagues ahead. Which, by any objective measure, does not equate to the both of them being "close". And that is the crux of my argument, not the hold% crap that you're been harping about.

If you do not think they are close, then you are the one who is not being objective. The Tennis Channel countdown, while flawed, had Sampras in the top 5 of the men of all time. How is that not close? If you don't think Sampras' serve was better than Roger's (and Roger's is very good) then you clearly do not know much about tennis.

Click to expand...

did I claim Federer had a better serve than sampras? My take is, their first serves are comparable, and Pete had a GOAT 2nd serve, which is much better than Federer's. But that does not make their games "close". That was my point. For e.g., if Federer had won 2x the titles he has won currently, he'd still be ranked #1 and sampras #5. So claiming that they're close because they're just 4 places apart on the TT ranking doesn't make sense.

Really? Because the last time I checked, Federer beat Sampras on fast grass playing S&V tennis, he also won 2003 Wimbledon playing 80% S&V. In contrast, Sampras was a failure on clay, he was not even a factor there. Federer has had matchup problems but he never sucked on a surface like Sampras and Ralph which makes the two one dimensional.

And Federer prefers the faster surfaces ANYWAY. So in theory he would've won more majors in the 90s. Tell me one major today that is even remotely fast compared to say 04/05 let alone the 90s. Heck even USO is slow today and it's only a matter of time when it's the same speed as AO. It's a joke how much the authorities have tampered with the surfaces.

Click to expand...

Your analysis is weak and misses the mark. One match means little when one player is past his prime and the other has barely reached his prime. More importantly, Sampras was only one of several S&V'ers in his era who would have winning records against Federer on grass. Federer may have never won at Wimbledon in Sampras era. Further, the reason that Federer is able to reach the finals at the French Open, much less win one, is that there has been only one great clay court player in Federer's era. In Sampras era, there were many who would have dominated Federer on clay such as Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera, Agassi, Courier, Chang, etc. etc. et al.

Your analysis is weak and misses the mark. One match means little when one player is past his prime and the other has barely reached his prime. More importantly, Sampras was only one of several S&V'ers in his era who would have winning records against Federer on grass. Federer may have never won at Wimbledon in Sampras era. Further, the reason that Federer is able to reach the finals at the French Open, much less win one, is that there has been only one great clay court player in Federer's era. In Sampras era, there were many who would have dominated Federer on clay such as Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera, Agassi, Courier, Chang, etc. etc. et al.

Click to expand...

looks like this highly "analytical" point was pulled out of your rear. sorry, your analysis stinks.

And Sampras grew up on hard courts, yet Federer's record far surpasses Sampras in HC; so what's the point of bringing up where he grew up? Are you claiming that the fast surfaces didn't aid sampras more in holding serve than the slower surfaces of today? what BS -- the world's "greatest" serve comes up a cropper on clay. Here's a gentle reminder: the surfaces were slowed down (wimby, especially) because the tournament was turning into a serve fest. Are you still going to deny that Sampras had an easier time holding serve because the surfaces barring clay aided him?

yeah, Federer has more grass titles because he played warm up tourneys? and sampras didn't? it's Federer's fault that sampras lost early? what a moronic argument.. you seem to get into this mode anytime there's a Federer vs Sampras argument.

you don't get to define what a "normal" federer fan is. may be you like Sampras and Federer equally, so you play the objectivity card, and would clamor for them to be mentioned in the same breath -- but i don't have to. i
look at facts, and it's pretty evident that Federer is a league above sampras.

Click to expand...

In other words, you know nothing about Pete Sampras. He modeled his game after Rod Laver in order to win on grass. Back to the chokie with you.

Your analysis is weak and misses the mark. One match means little when one player is past his prime and the other has barely reached his prime. More importantly, Sampras was only one of several S&V'ers in his era who would have winning records against Federer on grass. Federer may have never won at Wimbledon in Sampras era. Further, the reason that Federer is able to reach the finals at the French Open, much less win one, is that there has been only one great clay court player in Federer's era. In Sampras era, there were many who would have dominated Federer on clay such as Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera, Agassi, Courier, Chang, etc. etc. et al.

Click to expand...

that's dumb ....

chang and to a lesser extent agassi would be crushed by federer on clay .....Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera, Courier vs federer would be competitive , but keep in mind that they peaked at different times and theirs were much shorter peak periods on clay than federer's ....

there are quite a few players in federer-nadal era that are very good on clay, but were stopped by the duo - djoker, delpo, coria, soderling, davydenko, nalbandian etc

federer may never have won wimbledon in sampras era ??????? LOL !!!!!!!!!!! That's height of dumbness ...

Sampras is one of the greatest players ever to grace a tennis court, and the sport is better off having had him be a part of it. He obviously had an amazing serve, wonderful running forehand, unbelievably explosive athleticism, and penetrating, near perfect volleys. His slam dunk will probably always be remembered.

Having said that, I just think Federer's game is a class above Pete's. I think he does everything (except for serving) better. I think the stats on how incredibly dominant he was in his prime on all surfaces CLEARLY show this, and how he continues to be a major contender on all surfaces despite nearing 31 just adds credibility to my claim. Pete based his whole legacy, his whole greatness around the number of slams won, and Roger won more in half the time. Nostalgic Sampras fans need to move forward and accept that he is not the best to play this game, but that doesn't mean he isn't in the top top tier.

Tennis progresses and moves forward. The game evolves, and players get better and better and better. In 20 years from now, Nadal and Djokovic and Federer's groundstrokes will probably look slow (and that is a pretty scary thing to imagine). What will make Federer stand out is his unique God given talent, and how much FUN he made it to watch this sport. In many ways, Roger is a combination of Borg, Agassi, and Sampras in one. He surpasses the dominance of Sampras, changed the game more than Borg, and is more beloved than Agassi.

Click to expand...

A class above Pete's? No! If Federer was greater than Sampras, it is because his forehand was so great. It was the equivalent of Sampras' serve, except he gets to use it every game.

Why the heck should Sampras's incompetence on a surface(in this case clay) be overlooked? I mean he was so mediocre/below average on clay that he was losing to nobodies there. And this incredible serve of his(which some say is a bigger weapon than a FH) amounted to zilch on clay. In other words it appeared that good because he played on lightning quick surfaces of the 90s. Plus his weak ground game is no excuse to exempt him from his performance on clay. Edberg a pure S&Ver/net rusher reached the finals of RG and almost won it.

A serve's effectiveness includes not just speed/power but also placement and guile. Federer's serve is more about placement and guile, it's hard to get a read on his serve. That's the one complaint most of his opponents have,they just can't figure out his serve placement. Roddick's serve is more about power, so it depends what your definition of effectiveness is.

You talk as if Sampras has 3-5 more Wimby's than Federer. It's just one more and Federer lost that 08 final 9-7 in the fifth , so it's not a lot. If Federer had won the 08 Wimby,then he'd currently have 7 consecutive Wimby's surpassing Sampras's 7 Wimby's in a 8 year period.

And BTW Federer has won 65 consecutive grass matches,Pete has not. Federer has won 5 consecutive Wimby's ,Pete has not. If Federer wins one more Wimby, then Sampras would have to pat his 6 Year end championships a little more.

Sampras's incompetence on clay exempts him from putting him in the same bracket as Federer. You'll just have to deal with it.

Click to expand...

Sampras' 6 consecutive year end #1 rankings, and 286 weeks at #1, fully take his incompetence on clay into account.

chang and to a lesser extent agassi would be crushed by federer on clay .....Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera, Courier vs federer would be competitive , but keep in mind that they peaked at different times and theirs were much shorter peak periods on clay than federer's ....

there are quite a few players in federer-nadal era that are very good on clay, but were stopped by the duo - djoker, delpo, coria, soderling, davydenko, nalbandian etc

federer may never have won wimbledon in sampras era ??????? LOL !!!!!!!!!!! That's height of dumbness ...

Click to expand...

In other words, you have no substantive analysis whatsoever, so you resort to juvenile name calling. Coria was a head case who didn't have a champions mentality. Nor does Soderling or Davydenko. Nalbandian gets a pass due to chronic career spoiling injuries. But, to profer Del Potro, Soderling, Davydenko or Nalbandian as clay court specialists is the height of ignorance about tennis, especially clay court tennis.

that should tell you that it was relatively easier to stay on the top in the 90s with glaring holes in your game.

can you imagine Federer or Nadal or Djoker to suck on clay and remain YE #1 for 6 consecutive years?

Click to expand...

Wrong! It should tell you what a great champion Pete Sampras was, especially against his main rival. Further, Sampras had no holes in his game that Federer doesn't have. To the contrary, Federer's net game is incompetent by the standards of the 50's-90's. He is like a fish out of water at net.

One match means little when one player is past his prime and the other has barely reached his prime.

Click to expand...

I agree that 1 match is not a large enough sample size(and pre-prime and post-prime cancel each other out), but what the match does indicate is that Federer beat Sampras at his own game. It simply means he would've had his share of success on the fast grass of Wimby. Whether he would've beaten Sampras in a majority of the grass encounters is unknown.

More importantly, Sampras was only one of several S&V'ers in his era who would have winning records against Federer on grass. Federer may have never won at Wimbledon in Sampras era.

Click to expand...

I think most people know that Federer wasn't an early bloomer like Ralph. Federer as a teenager was a headcase and it took a while before he mentally matured. This explains Federer's inconsistency in his early years where in one match he'd be absolutely brilliant and lose the very next(like in Wimby 01). Once he sorted out his mentality, he was almost unstoppable.

Further, the reason that Federer is able to reach the finals at the French Open, much less win one, is that there has been only one great clay court player in Federer's era. In Sampras era, there were many who would have dominated Federer on clay such as Kuerten, Muster, Bruguera, Agassi, Courier, Chang, etc. etc. et al.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry this argument of weaker competition is something I can never roll with. If a player dominates ,the competition is weak, if he doesn't it means it's a strong field. Nonsense.
The fact is that there were stellar claycourters in Federer's era as well, like Ferrer,Almagro,Djokovic,Coria etc but they couldn't win because someone like Nadal was leagues above them and was winning everything.

Nadal's BH abuse of Federer is the chink in Federer's armour. Noone exploits it like Nadal and noone else can replicate it either. So the whole argument that other clay courters could've beaten Federer on the premise of Nadal beating Federer is ridiculous imo.

the 286 weeks at #1, to an extent, not the 6 consecutive year end #1 rankings .....

He never lost out on ending an year #1 because of his mediocre clay court play .....

Click to expand...

Yes but another way to see it is that his task was tougher, given that he gained virtually no points during clay.

The bigger point here is that the fact that Sampras sucked on clay already reflects on his overall accomplishments (slams, masters, weeks at no 1 etc). We shouldn't 'double penalize'. In essence total accomplishments should be the first criteria to compare players and then if there is a tie, then you can perhaps factor in things like surface versatility etc.

In other words, you have no substantive analysis whatsoever, so you resort to juvenile name calling. Coria was a head case who didn't have a champions mentality. Nor does Soderling or Davydenko. Nalbandian gets a pass due to chronic career spoiling injuries. But, to profer Del Potro, Soderling, Davydenko or Nalbandian as clay court specialists is the height of ignorance about tennis, especially clay court tennis.

I'm beginning to doubt that you even play the game.

Click to expand...

so what substantive analysis do you have to suggest federer may never win a wimbledon in sampras' era ?????? your wild imagination ?????? LOL !!!!!!!

how did soderling beat both federer and nadal at RG ( in different years of course ?

Others also have played at a very high level on clay. Just that they were stopped by these 2 ... When did I say those guys were clay court 'specialists' ? I said they were very good on clay ..... just because they are good on other surfaces , doesn't mean they are not good on clay ...

I already gave my substantive analysis .......chang is nowhere near the CC that federer is..... agassi is also quite a bit lower than federer ......

I also mentioned that while peak Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Kuerten are on the same level as peak federer on clay and matches b/w them would be competitive, their peaks were shorter , but you chose to ignore that ......

I agree that 1 match is not a large enough sample size(and pre-prime and post-prime cancel each other out), but what the match does indicate is that Federer beat Sampras at his own game. It simply means he would've had his share of success on the fast grass of Wimby. Whether he would've beaten Sampras in a majority of the grass encounters is unknown.

I think most people know that Federer wasn't an early bloomer like Ralph. Federer as a teenager was a headcase and it took a while before he mentally matured. This explains Federer's inconsistency in his early years where in one match he'd be absolutely brilliant and lose the very next(like in Wimby 01). Once he sorted out his mentality, he was almost unstoppable.

I'm sorry this argument of weaker competition is something I can never roll with. If a player dominates ,the competition is weak, if he doesn't it means it's a strong field. Nonsense.
The fact is that there were stellar claycourters in Federer's era as well, like Ferrer,Almagro etc but they couldn't win because someone like Nadal was leagues above them and was winning everything.

Nadal's BH abuse of Federer is the chink in Federer's armour. Noone exploits it like Nadal and noone else can replicate it either. So the whole argument that other clay courters could've beaten Federer on the premise of Nadal beating Federer is ridiculous imo.

Click to expand...

Watch Federer's 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 loss to Kuerten at the 2004 French Open after Kuerten recovered (as much as he was able), from his hip surgery. That is what Federer looks like against a clay court specialist. It's ugly. He struggles to the end, but, he just isn't a great clay court player. That was 2004, when Federer was clearly #1 and Kuerten was on his last legs with a disabled hip.

Sorry, but, Federer would not have as many major titles in he peaked in the 90's as he did in the 2000's.

so what substantive analysis do you have to suggest federer may never win a wimbledon in sampras' era ?????? your wild imagination ?????? LOL !!!!!!!

how did soderling beat both federer and nadal at RG ( in different years of course ?

Others also have played at a very high level on clay. Just that they were stopped by these 2 ... When did I say those guys were clay court 'specialists' ? I said they were very good on clay ..... just because they are good on other surfaces , doesn't mean they are not good on clay ...

I already gave my substantive analysis .......chang is nowhere near the CC that federer is..... agassi is also quite a bit lower than federer ......

I also mentioned that while peak Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Kuerten are on the same level as peak federer on clay and matches b/w them would be competitive, their peaks were shorter , but you chose to ignore that ......

Click to expand...

Nadal was nursing bad knees and Federer isn't a great clay court player. You don't know what the word substantive means. Further, peak Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Kuerten [and Agassi] are not on the same level as peak Federer on clay. They are better clay court players than Federer.

Watch Federer's 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 loss to Kuerten at the 2004 French Open after Kuerten recovered (as much as he was able), from his hip surgery. That is what Federer looks like against a clay court specialist. It's ugly. He struggles to the end, but, he just isn't a great clay court player. That was 2004, when Federer was clearly #1 and Kuerten was on his last legs with a disabled hip.

Sorry, but, Federer would not have as many major titles in he peaked in the 90's as he did in the 2000's.

Click to expand...

Well I would point to how badly Kuerten spanked Sampras at the French, but unfortunately Sampras lost before he ever had to face Guga

Watch Federer's 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 loss to Kuerten at the 2004 French Open after Kuerten recovered (as much as he was able), from his hip surgery. That is what Federer looks like against a clay court specialist. It's ugly. He struggles to the end, but, he just isn't a great clay court player. That was 2004, when Federer was clearly #1 and Kuerten was on his last legs with a disabled hip.

Sorry, but, Federer would not have as many major titles in he peaked in the 90's as he did in the 2000's.

Click to expand...

Also, Federer's game on clay continually improved throughout his peak since it was the surface he was weakest on. 2004 loses in r32, 2005 SF, 2006 F, 2007 F, 2008 F, 2009 WINNER.

Hell, Federer beat Djokovic while Djesus was at the height of his powers on clay last year (Djesus having spanked Nadal twice on clay before that meeting) and he was THIRTY. Djesus would eat Guga alive and trounce him like yesterday's trash. Lets not start another of these silly "Pete's clay court era were the GOAT of all time since Pete sucked so bad he couldn't even challenge them since he got owned before having to face them" threads

Nadal was nursing bad knees and Federer isn't a great clay court player. You don't know what the word substantive means. Further, peak Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Kuerten [and Agassi] are not on the same level as peak Federer on clay. They are better clay court players than Federer.

Click to expand...

so substantive analytis means making statements like federer may not win a wimbledon in Sampras' era by pulling it out from your imagination ??????? jeez, really ? :lol:

and Nadal was just fine . The knees excuses came up only because Soderling beat him .......did you even watch the match ????? soderling was just on fire. He was even better in the next year's QF vs federer .... that soderling could have beaten any other clay courter , even if they were playing well

by what measure is Agassi a better CC than federer ? Lesser no of clay court titles, lesser winning % on clay, lesser finals at RG, lesser no of CC masters .... what parameter .....peak level of play ????? hardly think so .....

the others you could argue are better ( Kuerten is definitely better IMO ) , but to put them in a different league is dumb .....